Why can't even a single atheist refute the transcendent

>>737825528
this is just fucking dumb

>things exist
>we didn't invent things
>must be god

File: 14C6503A-C2C4-468A-A1E4-3FAD06F82EBF-689-000000C98A5EAA7B.jpg (10KB, 236x355px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x355px

>>737825838
This is a misrepresentation of the argument my poor lost atheist soul. If you must, scroll to the bottom to see the actual argument.

I don't believe in God because if he is so Almighty and All knowing, why does he constantly feel the need to test the faith of his followers? Why is he so insecure? I don't want to believe in something that would purposely kill or maim children from birth, and then use his ideology to force the parents into complacency, saying it's a "Test from God". Fuck that.

STOP JUST STOP PLEASE STOP feeding this troll with responses this cunt craves nothing more than the misery and reactions of others just ignore this shipost for gods sake.

File: 8FCA11B9-B443-4EDC-AEC5-6A76C79F74B4-689-000000D3CEF038E7.jpg (36KB, 472x700px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 472x700px

>>737827126
Anon you're adding specific attributes to a particular God (who transcends our knowledge). I'd be happy to discuss to challenges our Heavenly Father lays upon us but this is derailing from the argument. It's a simple matter of logic. There either is a God or there is not. Both can not be true, and by the laws of logic if one is negated, the other is therefore true. This transcendental argument logically shows how atheism is negated, and thus, the only answer left is that there is a God.

>>737827270
Why do you turn away from discussion anon? Don't be frightened when faced with logical truth. Embrace your divine creator.

Alex Malpass already laid waste to Matt Slick and came.

Back to the drawing board.

https://youtu.be/HUR49lBH1iE

File: chlomo30.png (710KB, 960x830px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 960x830px

>>737825528
Burger plz, atheism is either lack of belief in deity/deities or belief in nonexistence of deity/deities.

Did I swallow the bait hard here?

File: neverending.jpg (44KB, 338x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 338x500px

Herp derps

>>737825528
Some one needs to photoshop some dicks in that chicks face

File: IMG_6636.png (96KB, 1012x432px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1012x432px

>>737825528

>>737828963
The log of truth has spoken, answer that and stay fashionable bitch

facebook.com profile id=100009905584751debate me

>>737825528
Because I don't care about your fairy tale about the old man in the sky who watches you touch yourself.

"Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely, the existence of logical absolutes. Therefore, it is invalidated as a viable option for accounting for them and the only other option, God exists, is validated."

Dear God, talk about logical fallacies. Atheism can indeed not "account" for this, as atheism cannot account for anything. That is because atheism isn't a set of positive claims or beliefs, but merely a denial of another positive claim. Namely the claim that God existst. There are two major fallacies in your line of reasoning.

1) Just because person denies one claim doesn't mean he has to come with a better alternative. Someone can point out that communism has never actually lead to true equality. Whether or not that statement is correct has absoluteley nothing to do with whether or not the person stating this has an (better) alternative philosophy. Someone can criticize Fifty Shades of Grey without having to write a better book themselves first. And atheistst can criticize the idea of a God, without having the account for all the unanswered questions theists usually use "Gawd done do it!!" as an easy answer for.

2) Just because one thing is false doesn't automatically mean another thing is true. If atheistst are wrong that doesn't automatically mean the Biblical God exists. Maybe the concept of "God" is very different from what you think it is, maybe the Buddhists were right and reincarnation is the answer, and maybe "God" is just some extraterrestial being from another dimension or some shit. You can't just claim to be right because you think someone else is wrong. Communism isn't right because they disagree with fascism.

File: A76BC8AC-AC34-4F87-9B91-9645D4AB453A-689-000000DDF05F5416.jpg (29KB, 463x463px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 463x463px

>>737828547
You've defined atheism, but you haven't actually addressed the argument.

>>737828493
Malpass would have refuted the argument if his terms were correct, And this even threw Matt Slick off (for the moment). The fact of the matter is that if it were true that his second premise were his conclusion then infact Malpass would have been correct in that the argument was begging the question, this is not the case however.

>>737825528


This is all well-laid out arguments that, contextuel, can hold true, even though its parts are subject of discussions ancient Greece. Theseus paradox is already prevelent in 1.1.1

In even they are all true, there is no argument that the source of logical absolutes isn't simply a rock.

File: bonghit.webm (350KB, 460x320px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 460x320px

>>737825528
Religion is the ONLY area of society that has made ZERO progress in the last 2,000 years.

Major FAIL

File: 7B488174-75C4-4BF1-82A6-22B4159D87BF-689-000000DF7E6D8A40.jpg (450KB, 1920x802px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1920x802px

>>737830059
You missed the bulk of that argument that deals with logical absolutes and logical abstractions, which necessitates a mind. Because the laws of logic are transcendent, and logical abstractions require a mind, it follows that a mind which also transcends is necessary to account for them. You can not account for these laws with a "not mind".

Also, all of this is based on the assumption that there must be a logical source for what we call logic. How are you so sure that is the case? What is your evidence for that? The universe and all its laws could just as well be irrational, illogical and purposeless. I know that's not a pleasant thought, but you can't just start making shit up because you don't like being unsure about an answer.

"Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it."-Albert Camus

File: DB989668-C424-4F8D-81C9-28931810E967-689-000000E0D7857DF3.jpg (17KB, 492x468px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 492x468px

>>737830424
This is ignorance my poor lost soul. Christianity has played a huge role in the development of scientific advancement throughout history. Even Isaac Newton and Galileo were Christians anon.

>>737830142
False. Malpass was more than clear and his "terms" were fine.

Slick, Carm, and God are dead.

Move along, theist.

God does not need man.

Man does not need God.

Why ever should the two of us meet? Man's action would be fruitless against God, and God would be forbidden from taking action as intervention would constitute concession of his plan as imperfect thereby unraveling the paradigm of his entire existence.

And if our two kinds can never meet, what purpose is there to discussing one-another's nature?

>>737830427

Okay, what's your evidence that the laws of logic are transcendent then? What is your proof that what we call logical absolutes are in fact logical absolutes? For all we know logic is merely the way our species experiences the universe, but not an objective basis for anything.

And if you were to proof all of these claims, that logic as an abstract absolute, wouldn't it stand to reason that the most likely explenation for that is that if logic is a real thing, it therefore cannot be subject to subjective interpretation, and is therefore merely a thing men observe in the physical world and adopt as their own? Why is there and mind necessary other than the human mind? And if a mind were required, what is your argument that that mind is God? A conspiracy theorist like Elon Musk could just as easily claim that that "mind" is simply the way our extraterrestial creators programmed the computer program we live in. What is your argument that that required "mind" is in fact a deity?

prove*

File: 1469870532711.gif (1005KB, 209x229px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 209x229px

>>737830664
>Even Isaac Newton and Galileo were Christians anon.
>issac newton

dude was straight up crazy. Pursued alchemy.

File: Giordano_Bruno.jpg (20KB, 290x326px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 290x326px

>>737830664

The Vatican burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Giordano Bruno was a scientific genius of that time as well as Galileo who was imprisoned for life because he proved Giordano Bruno correct.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right

Religion has failed on so many levels it's absolutely disgusting.

>>737825528
Because it doesn't make any sense, the first premise is invalid. I assume you mean this (wikipedia copy paste)
1 God (most often God is defined as the supreme entity found in Christianity), is a necessary precondition for logic and morality.
2 People know things (have logical, and moral intuitions).
3 Therefore, God exists.
However, the first premise is not an accepted fact, in fact it is something you must prove for the argument to work, and since there isn't any, the argument is flawed. May I also refer you to the first 30 mins or so of The Zeitgeist, it has some very interesting ideas about the origins of religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbIu8Zeqp0

>>737830664
>>737831220
Yeah, shithead, Isaac Newton was an antitrinitarian who refused the notion of an immortal immaterial soul.

At least three quarters of everything he ever wrote were criticisms and litanies against the Church.

>>737825528
thank you for your persistance.
>i wish i was as you are.

File: 0834F40C-A0E3-45FB-A23D-3D52C27FA299-689-000000E60F12CE43.gif (978KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 500x375px

>>737830608
Infact, the opposite is true. Logic can not account for logic, that's why it necessitates an authority, God, to account for.

>>737831220
you have to be crazy to invent calculus and describe gravity and inertia

File: 1443744662081.jpg (40KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 413x395px

>>737825838

>>737831679

Actually it necessitates magic logic pixies.

Checkmate, theist.

File: 1499190697823.png (55KB, 239x250px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 239x250px

OP is fucking trolling, /b/ is full of retards

File: 1472628694642.gif (1MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x240px

>>737831782
the best of us usually are.

Broken clocks are correct twice a day. It's the rest of the day you have to worry about.

File: 06EB8AE8-2707-47BB-892D-9359B50FE1B4-689-000000E8A7BC11C0.jpg (100KB, 724x558px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 724x558px

>>737831139
This is covered in the opening paragraph anon, blessings be upon you.

>Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.

Don't fuck with OP. That joke is fucked beyond repair. You want someone who is actually educated in logic to put both OK and his hero, smug retard Matt Slick in their place?

See: Alex Malpass

A brutal and satisfying anal raping of intellectual sophists.

>>737831679
see

>>737830268

>>737832180
>But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.

Explain to me, why must it mean that a god is authoring them? Why can't they just be what they are? This is a shitty god of the gaps argument and you're retarded.

File: B8A6AB37-FD64-4F7D-A2C6-7F3CE427AED9-689-000000EB1A2CF82E.jpg (3KB, 192x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 192x160px

>>737832106
That's one interpretation of God. The important part is that you agree it necessitates a supernatural mind(s). So you agree that a God exists, but differ on what kind. At this point it becomes a matter of which God is the most likely, and I'm sorry to say the evidence for those pixies does not stack up well against the mountains of evidence for Christianity.

File: 1460600394056.jpg (905KB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 2880x1800px

>>737825528

We don't need to refute it, it's just another manifestation of religious faith.

The transcendental argument was cooked up by morons like yourself so that you and your friends can feel more confident about your religious fantasies.

File: BB10CD4C-C460-4DA2-BC00-5BC255B9DF54-689-000000EBB4C9DF91.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>737832653
The key word is conceptual anon.

I don't care about God since it's obvious he doesn't care about me.

File: IMG_6839.jpg (148KB, 640x969px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 640x969px

>>737832866
OP here, and once again God has granted me a sign that in fact I am doing his bidding. Behold the captcha for my last response, how can atheists even deny this?

>>737825528
>https://carm.org/transcendental-argument
Andit all starts to fall apart at 7.5
>Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
Why does it seem proper? This is an opinion of an imperfect mind, and is therefore not a logical absolute.

Nice try though; better than Occam's Razor some dumb faggots and trolls like you use

>>737831679

>Logic can not account for logic, that's why it necessitates an authority, God, to account for.
Or:
>Logic needs God to account for itself.

If logic, and thus the absolutes of the universe, are dependant on God, isn't it also possible that the omnipotent God changes them? Why should we adhere to the Laws of Identity if God himself can change them?

Can God make statements not the same as themself? If so, he can disprove the transcendental arguments himself. We don't need to refute them as your own God would be able to, simply because he is omnipotent and logic is dependant on God.

>>737833059
From your worldview that would be correct, it is dependent on an imperfect mind, hence the reason for God to be the foundation for those absolutes which we draw inferences from. You've perfectly demonstrated why the atheistic worldview can not account for the laws of logic.

>>737825528

>taking this much effort to prove god

who cares go live

>>737833059
(cont)
and it gets really, really good when we come to the "only two options"
>Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely, the existence of logical absolutes.
In other words, if there are immutable laws of the universe then a god did it. Which, as all logical and right thinking people know, is complete bollocks

File: 955B53F6-CAB2-41FC-8194-4B5FDED69F53-689-000000F0479B3750.jpg (74KB, 958x958px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 958x958px

>>737833072
OP here, this a pretty good response that I'm not sure how to answer so I guess I'll just come out and admit I'm a shitposting faggot and an atheist. But I don't think this thread was a waste of time because the transcendental argument is a tricky one, especially when it's convoluted with all kinds of specific logical rhetoric, so this was me playing the devil's advocate to try and learn better arguments against this nonsense and the problems it presents.

Also, this faggot >>737828493 and this faggot>>737830701 pretty much
/thread, if anyone is God it might be Malpass

Forgive me /b/

General atheism thread

File: download.jpg (7KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 224x225px

>>737825528

File: DCE4C9D7-6B1C-4269-8FA3-F9AF93E9B31D-689-000000F100C51D06.jpg (208KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1920x1080px

>>737833072
>>737833442
Also this faggot, you got me on the ropes here kek

File: 1498927043354.jpg (29KB, 500x428px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x428px

Hey guys why would you want to follow a kike anyway? Christ is a cuck religion.

File: 1498862313165.jpg (215KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1024x576px

http://biblehub.com/luke/3-33.htm
>the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah

http://biblehub.com/hebrews/7-14.htm
>For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah

http://biblehub.com/luke/4-15.htm
>He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
http://biblehub.com/john/1-11.htm
>He came to his own people, and even they rejected him.

His own people aka Jews.

http://biblehub.com/john/4-22.htm
>You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

Samaritans aka Gentiles.

JESUS WAS A JEW.

File: 1498673316315.jpg (37KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x432px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Adenauer
>Konrad Hermann Joseph Adenauer was a German statesman who served as the first post-war Chancellor of Germany (West Germany) from 1949 to 1963.
>He was the first leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a Christian Democratic party that under his leadership became, and has since usually been the most influential party in the country.
>He displayed a strong dedication to a broad vision of market-based liberal democracy and anti-communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany
>West Germany joined NATO in 1955
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Gauck
>is the President of Germany, serving since March 2012. A former Lutheran pastor, he came to prominence as an anti-communist civil rights activist in East Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel
>the daughter of Horst Kasner, a Lutheran pastor and a native of Berlin, and his wife Herlind, born in 1928 in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland)
>is a German politician who is currently Chancellor of Germany. She is also the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
>From 1979, as an advocate of 'open societies', Soros financially supported dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)
>first trade union in a Warsaw Pact country that was not controlled by a communist party.
>anti-Soviet social movement ranging from people associated with the Catholic Church
>CIA covert support
>In Sollicitudo rei socialis, a major document of Catholic Social Teaching, Pope John Paul II identifies the concept of solidarity with the poor and marginalized as a constitutive element of the Gospel and human participation in the common good.

More like, there never been more churches, while Christian Democrats didn't even exist in Socialism. Pro-refugee faggots are all Christian.

File: 1498671997692.jpg (302KB, 1143x432px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1143x432px

>All Christians Are Cucks
http://archive.is/X8Tqk

>All Christians are Cucks #2
http://archive.is/iFGqR

>All Christians are Cucks #3
http://archive.is/J3Y6Z

>All Christians are Cucks #4
http://archive.is/pBMGf

>Cucktianity: What Is A Covenant
http://archive.is/Fdsxo

>Cuck Identity
http://archive.is/qQPMf

>Cuck Identity #2
http://archive.is/ICpaJ

>Indoctrination
http://archive.is/RgZOY

>Why do people care about berating an increasingly irrelevant religion anyway?
Because they're not irrelevant. They actively fund and even run many of the boats coming from Africa to Europe.

http://www.savethechildren.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=8rKLIXMGIpI4E&b=9357115&ct=14921495

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-boat-rescue-charities-medicins-sans-frontieres-save-the-children-mediterranean-sea-migrants-a7699571.html

https://www.savethechildren.net/article/save-children-brings-300-refugees-and-migrants-safety-search-and-rescue-capacity

Steven Anderson on race-mixing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz3ccSJtJXA
"Interracial Marriage" Baptist Preaching (independent, fundamental, KJV sermon)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRCVeqvZKt4

File: 1498344142346.png (727KB, 1285x604px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 1285x604px

Jewish Communists
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html
Jewish Founders of International Communism for the One World Order
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists-founders.html
Jewish Pre-Eminence in the Political Left/Communism
http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/commun.htm
The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
Jewish Activists Created Communism
http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/jewishactivistscommunism.html
Jews and Bolshevism
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html
Jews and Communism
http://iamthewitness.com/doc/Jews.and.Communism.htm
Jewish Bolsheviks
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1256305898
Jewish Bolshevism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism
Jewish Faces in Chinese Government
http://jewishfaces.com/china.html

File: 97D62906-05DD-4625-B129-041138E3C896-689-000000F25A4946CC.png (425KB, 638x348px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 638x348px

And now the real shitposters have arrived, thanks for everyone who actually attempted to give reasonable refutation

>>737834082
Good effort. It was fun spending a few minutes deconstructing the paper you offered as "proof". If I'd had more time I may have been able to do a better job of blowing holes in the entire thing, as there as it's bound to be full of logical fallacies, but I just scanned it for evidence of assumption or "god must have done it" but in convoluted and confusing language. Found both.

File: 1498354082858.jpg (11KB, 229x297px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 229x297px

>>737834420
Whats the problem? Why would you follow a jewish religion? Are you a kike yourself?

>>737825528
Stop posting here

sage

>>737825528
Sleep tight, pupper.

File: 2926518A-40A6-408E-83A5-5F19FB1DF9FF-322-0000005B4BEA4E08.jpg (31KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 625x626px

>>737825528

>>737827270
>>737828662
>>737829484
>>737830424
LOL. ATHEISTS ARE THE EASIEST PEOPLE TO TRIGGER WTF

>>737825528
No you.

>>737825528
What is a god?

>>737825528
If there was a god there would be no 4chan. Prove me wrong.

>>737825528
post this to /lit/ instead, theyll give you the philosophical jargon you need to convince yourself however you want.

>>737825528
Nice thread, faggot

File: 95E4D12D-0E09-4F97-AD51-3A9E72FF346F-689-000000F52A707230.png (366KB, 635x349px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 635x349px

>>737834441
Yeah definitely, well done on the refutation. Matt Slick is such a pile of shit because he has a pretty good grasp on logic, better than me and uses it dishonestly to strengthen his argument. Malpass basically destroyed him by showing that in a disjunctive syllogism you can't have your second premise be your conclusion, otherwise you're begging the question.

Who farted?

>>737832180
"Logical absolutes" are not absolute, there are very few statements that are entirely true or entirely false (if any), and indeed the absolute truth cannot be known. If that makes you uncomfortable, tough shit.
Next.

>>737834688
Triggers are the atheist people to wtf, EASY!

It shore is somer in hear

File: Bastians_Truth.jpg (40KB, 400x303px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x303px

>>737825528
>Why can't even a single atheist refute the transcendental argument for God
We have and go fuck yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
>Faith has no place demanding agreement or punishing disagreement.

Druid offshore sombrero swells focal shud car selves sits show advocated show peak kanji spanked Epson slide msg wording wood get bruh auto sub crate egg Lori porcini edging nigh itty rtf tunic shrunk for took added ask self kook still.

>>737835931
dont fall for the bait dude, the more this fucker keeps his shit up and people like you keep replying the sooner these kinds of thread will pass.

Why can atheists disprove dragons?

>>737836434
See
>>737833922

>>737833072
because these thoughts reflect a "transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind" they can't change. If God changed his mind that would contradict his nature

>>737837386
And yet, that whole thing with the flood "supposedly" happened.

>>737825528
This is the 10 000 repost of this copypasta and people still talk about it. Such shit makes /b/ lame. Are u such autistic that you have to talk about the same shit over and over again?

>>737837487
I don't think the transcendental argument requires the judeo-christian god.

>>737825528
why can't you prove god exists?

>>737838183
read the argument he provided

>>737838226
no argument presented...only a hissy fit

>>737838355
not sure how this is a hissy fit https://carm.org/transcendental-argument

>>737838183
Because you can't prove a negative.
BOOM! </thread> *drops mic*
For the illiterate: you cannot prove that something does NOT exist.
t. Atheist

>>737838487
>ranscendental argument for God,
it's a whimpering hissy fit. no evidence presented to prove god's existence.

File: waaaaaaaaaaaa.png (17KB, 847x304px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 847x304px

>>737838649
>hissy fit
It's a logical argument, not sure how this definition applies to it. If you see an issue with it point the flaw out.

>>737825528
MUP DA DOO DIDDA PO MO GUB BIDDA BE DAT TUM MUHFUGEN BIX NOOD COF BIN DUB HO MUHFUGGA

>>737838557
Sure you can, if for example your presented the options of something being either possible (P) or impossible (Q), it must be one or the other. It can't be both and it can't be neither, therefore, if you negate one, the other is true. If you prove something can't be impossible, it then follows that it is infact possible.

>>737825528
>how can logic exist without god
The entire argument here boiled down. Logic is true whether or not it 'exists'. In an empty universe 1+1 would still =2 but there would be no 1s or 2s, nor anyone to think of them or energy for it to act on.
It would be an accurate but hypothetical and irrelevant idea held by no one. How such a thing can be claimed to 'exist' is an exercise in self validation.

>>737825528
God isn't real, kiddo.

logic is arbitrarily defined by humans, not god.

>>737825528
The same argument proves the existence of ALL gods, not just the Christian one.

What now, monotheist?

This argument is pretty easy to refute.


"Something cannot create itself" is the crux of the argument, and not only is it absurd (Then who created God? Is it turtles all the way down? Etc.), but we can demonstrate that at the quantum level, stuff does actually appear out of nothing. Virtual particles are constantly coming into existence, then colliding with each other and disappearing. The total energy of the universe is actually zero, it doesn't violate any laws of logic.

Our understanding of how the world we interact with works just doesn't apply at the quantum level anyway, things can be both true and false at the same time because there is inherent uncertainty in matter.

>>737839012
no it isn't. if it were, supporting evidence would be provided.

>>737840302
playing devil's advocate here...what created the big bang?

>>737830427
By what bizarre reasoning do the laws of logic require a framework to work within?

If they do, it's purely a man made concept anyway.

Yup, i just claimed logic is manmade, fight me.

>>737830902
Yup...

An intervening God is logically impossible as he would not be omniscient. If your God tinkers with his universe after setting it in motion he lacks foresight and is a false God IMO.

Why would I worship a true god if I don't feel inclined to? It would be disingenuous. God created me to understand him precisely as I do now, if not, then there is no such thing as a God at all.

OP is a faggot and should kill itself

File: maxresdefault.jpg (149KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x720px

>>737825528
maybe god works through people only and is helpless without us.
> got never did a miracle without at least one person being present. Think about it

>>737839520
Not OP, but It proves either a god or gods, once we've established that it is more logical to believe in God, we then deduce which is more likely based on the evidence.

Pro tip: its Christianity

because they are not retarded.

>>737841503
>If they do, it's purely a man made concept anyway.

You're almost there. You're right that they are conceptual, but that becomes problematic when you take into account logical absolutes. A perfect mind is required to account for conceptually perfect, absolutes, because they are transcendent and thus require a transcendent mind to conceptualize them.